2/21/2007

The Network Can’t be as Happy as all That.

So… how often was the Anglican Communion Network (aka the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes) or its' Moderator mentioned in the Communiqué and its related documents?

Answer: once, in the footnote about who gave testimony. (Bishop Robert Duncan, Bishop of Pittsburgh and Moderator of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes.)

That is not to say that the Network's efforts are not present in some of the Primates down-to-the-wire negotiations the last day of the Primates Meeting, but it is to say that the Network is not recognized or affirmed in the final Communiqué. The Network was not seen as part of the solution.

The Camp Allen "Principles," written by a group of bishops more or less half from the Network and half from other dioceses, was given star billing. Those principles included this interesting phrase: "a clear belief that we faithfully represent ECUSA in accordance with this church's Constitution and Canons, as properly interpreted by the Scripture and our historic faith and discipline." The Camp Allen "Windsor compliant Bishops" claim to "faithfully represent ECUSA", as opposed, say to the seventy-five to eighty-five bishops not there? A bit of over the top pride. Perhaps they didn't mean that. But at any rate, the Network, whose assessment of the Episcopal Church is that TEC is not the real Episcopal Church at all, but the Network is, is not mentioned in the Principles either.

Two of the Common Cause Partners in the Network – Anglican Mission in America (AMiA) and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) get passing glance reference in a foolishly optimistic aside , but by that time in the writing it seems the Primates were too tired to even think about the bishops spawned by these regrettable efforts of intruding Primates.

We must also remember that the Moderator had this to say about the notion of a Primatial Vicar: "…at first glance what is proposed is neither primatial, nor oversight, nor is it an alternative to the spiritual authority of one who, by both teaching and action, has expressly rejected the Windsor Report and its recommendations. This is obviously not what was asked for."

Perhaps the Network folk are happy, but hiding their happiness under a bushel. Perhaps they are busy at preparing for the next round. The House of Bishop's meeting should be quite an occasion.

1 comment:

  1. I agree with your assessment. However, the Primatial Vicar scheme in the Communique is quite different from the PV scheme originally proposed. The primates' proposal shares governance with the PB and the primates, whereas the original proposal was subject to the PB alone. It's a different animal.

    Sam

    ReplyDelete

OK... Comments, gripes, etc welcomed, but with comment moderation but with some cautions and one rule:
Cautions: Calling people fools, idiots, etc, will be reason to bounce your comment. Keeping in mind that in the struggles it is difficult enough to try to respect opponents, we should at least try.
Rule: PLEASE DO NOT SIGN OFF AS ANONYMOUS: BEGIN OR END THE MESSAGE WITH A NAME - ANY NAME. ANONYMOUS commentary will be cut.